Archaeologists have found a burial shroud sealed within a 2000-year-old tomb in Jerusalem. Comparing the newly found shroud to the Shroud of Turin adds to the evidence that the Shroud of Turin is a fake. From nationalgeographic.com:

The newfound shroud was something of a patchwork of simply woven linen and wool textiles, the study found. The Shroud of Turin, by contrast, is made of a single textile woven in a complex twill pattern, a type of cloth not known to have been available in the region until medieval times, Gibson said.

I've made plenty of trips to Mexico and Europe and it always amazes me how many "true" relics of the Saviour exist in churches and shrines. One would think that Christ was a franchise business. Which it probably was just after his death.

Posted by KDP in Madill, OK on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 10:15 AM

"Cast doubts"? You mean this makes the Shroud of Turin look real?

Posted by Goober on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 11:57 AM

To "cast doubt" means to make something more doubtful than it already was.

Posted by Crazy Ivan on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 01:58 PM

I agree with you KDP. I think if you added up all the pieces of the "true cross" that exist around the world, you'd have a small forest.

Posted by Joe Schmoe on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 02:58 PM

Cast doubt? How much more doubt do you need? This discovery won't even begin to change anyone's belief in the shroud. They are too far gone.

Posted by Charles in Michigan on Tue Dec 22, 2009 at 03:18 PM

You'd think the "Avatar" graphic on the Shroud would give it away.

Posted by Cranky Media Guy on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 03:54 AM

In a previous discussion I mentioned several points raised over 35 years ago that suggest, strongly, that te Shroud is authentic. Among these were anatomical details, details that needed knowledge that was not known in the 13th century such as detals about the method of scourging, etc. Among the points made those many years ago was that there is no paint, or other such on the Shroud - the image is burned into the fabric.
Considering how little fabric from 2000 years ago has survved, the fact that one scrap does not match another i not surprising. In 2000 years if a Vera Wang survives and a bit of fabric from some Levi's survives, the existence of the on does not disprove the validity of the other. In the book on the Shroud that I used as a reference for my earlier comments pointing out the reasons for no declaring i a fraud the author states, wth rference if I remember, that the fabric o the Shroud is of a type well known to exist 2000 years ago.

Bringing up previously debunked "evidence" doesn't count as being open minded. Every point you make has been successfully and conclusively refuted.

You might try looking for a scientific discussion of the shroud. It's pretty conclusive that the Shroud of Turin is not "the" shroud. Every point you raise can easily be explained by science. Some of them are just dead wrong. When you dig a little deeper into the literature, you'll find that the "It's A Miracle!" explanation is the least likely.

Posted by gcason on Wed Dec 23, 2009 at 05:53 PM

OK, when was the point that the scars of the whipping are consistent with Roman flagra and when was it shown that the information about the Roman whips were known in the 14th century? Every source I've every read that ever mentioned Roman crucifacation pointed out that since the Romans stopped crucifying people in about the 4th century, after the Roman Empire officially became Christian, the information about the procedure was lost until at leas the mid-18th century. It has been pointed out that the image of what appears to be spear wounds are superimposed over the imges of the whippin wounds. It was pointed out, about a hundred years ago, that the image of the person was that of a Sephardic Jew - in the 14th Century artists consistently presented the people in their works as that of the people of their time. When was it shown that artits of the 14th Century ever presented ancient people as something other than 14th Century people? The wound marks where the nails would have gone through the arms are in the wrist area, the proper anatomical area, in the 14th Century and even later when those wounds are shown, they are always shown in the hands where the nails would have torn free. The images of blood flowing shown the arms is consistent with someone hanging on a cross and sinking down due to being tired ad raising up due to the need to breathe - a detail never seen in any 14th Century work that I know of, if one exists please tell me where it is. Dr. Davi Willis, in the early '70s when the Shroud was availabl, discovered seven wounds visible on he Shroud that are not immediately obvious - show me any art work of the 14th Century that has that level of detail. The image has details of anatomy that were unknown in the 14th Century. The image shows a level of realism that in used in art for at least 100 years or so. Dr. Willis also was able to show that the images of the flagra were consistent with two people, of different heights, ding the whipping. Where was this refuted?

Oh, another point gcason, the fact that you started off by saying I should commit suicide is proof, clearly proof, that you believe your argument to be invalid.

Alex, somewhere in the first Shroud of Turin thread, I think, I posted two or three messages giving points from a book on the Shroud that was published sround 1975 I think. I used a borrowed copy of the book to get the points I presented and don't hae it now. The points I jut made are from an incomplete file I have of those points, I have only 6 now but I think I posed something like 20-30. If it isn't hard for you to put up a link to those messages, it might do this discussion well instead of people demanding that die for not accepting their beliefs without question.

Even given your statement on what the phrase means, a meaning I've never heard before, it still is an admission that you do not believe your argument; if you did believe your own argument, you would have presented evidence and not relied on a pesonal attack. And if the Shroud was reproduced, just how accurate was the reproduction? My point about the Shrud displaying information and an attitude about art that is not consitent with the 14th century still hasen't been addressed. Also, while I do not fixate on the Shroud, I do not believe I heard anything about this reproduction before now. If it made the news, it wasn't very impressive. Talk to me about other 14th Century art that shows the same level of anatomical knowledge, the same knowledge of perspective, the willingness to display people accurately for theproper time and not 14th century pretending to be of another time, talk to me of other 14th Century art that shows the level of detail - detail that would not be visible to thecrods nor which the crowds would care about.

Chris, your gullibility is astounding. The notion that we know in detail what people in the 14th century knew is ludicrous beyond belief. Your views of 14th century art are impressively ignorant. Beyond ignorant.

Moreover, you attribute to the shroud of Turin aspects that simply don't exist. There aren't any anatomical details that weren't obvious to any artist at any time period.

You're probably one of those gullible people who think Egyptians were unaware of drawing in perspective.

Posted by Joe on Thu Dec 24, 2009 at 06:25 PM

Joe, I would suggest you do some studying into military history. Military historians routinely use 14th cetury art of biblical scenes to research 14th century weapons and armor. Fashion historians routinely use 14th century art of biblical scenes to rsearch 14th century clothing. Antropologist have been abl to learn the attitudes of people who lived in pastcenturies, that is a major focus of cultural anthropology. The details, som of them, may have been visible but that does not mean that the artists paid any attention to them. An artist, or a forger, is a product of their culture and will produce art or a forgery consistent with the attitudes of their culture. This is how historians uncover medieval forged charters - the charters do not reflect the situations of the time they were suppoed to have bee written but the situation of decades or centuries later. And as far as th Egyptian art is concerned, is has been well established that rgardless of the level of their knowledge of perspective, their art did not use it because, for example, they depicted the size of people by status - the more important the person, the larger the image of that person.
Now, Havard Professor Carleton S. Coon described the image on the Shroud as that of a Sephardic Jew. Your choices are: 1) Prove tat Professor Coon was wrong, 2) Prove that 14th Century artists displayed Jesus as anyhting but as if he was from their local cultue, 3) Admit that this point casts doubt on te Shroud as a 14th forgery, or 4) Dodge the whole issue. I expect you to take option 4.

Wouldn't it strengthen your argument if the image was Mizrahic? It seems to me that the shroud depicting a Sephardic (European) Jew supports the forgery theory.

Posted by gcason on Sat Dec 26, 2009 at 04:28 PM

gcason, I have always heard Sephardic Jews as being the Middle Eastern ones. Professor Coon uses the term in that meaning; I have been just usinga part of his comment since I do not presently have the book I refer to with me, I have only a file I wrote during the earlier thread and the fileis incomplete. I intend to borrow the book again and go throughit for items I believe are in it, and bring up the points the author brought up. Bu, regardless of if the ethnic label is correct, the point that the image is not Southern French or Northern Italian, which it would e if it was a 14th-Century forgery from either of those areas is still domething that shoul be addressed. Remember, a great deal is known abut the attitudes of the people of Western Europe in the 14th Century is known and a forger of that time period would make a forgery that would be acceptable to the people of that era, not ours.

gcason, I just Googled the term Sephardic Jew and according to Wikkipedia, for what that's worth, the term is ofte used to cover both Sephardic Jews (from Iberia) and Mizrahic Jews even in Israel. In fact, it mentions that the Israeli Government lumps the two together as Sephardic Jews for official purposes.

You're going to have to start providing some references to back up your statements.

Professor Coons work had to do with racial types, so he almost certainly meant Sephardic in the ethnic sense, not the religious sense. You are incorrect that the term Sephardic applies to Middle Eastern Jews in a racial or ethnic sense. The term specifically refers to Jews who are physically from the Iberian Peninsula.

So, the image on the shroud is a European Jew which strongly supports the shroud being a forgery. The image is not a Middle Eastern Jew, which Jesus certainly was.

Posted by gcason on Sun Dec 27, 2009 at 09:40 AM

I just read the Huffpost story. It's hilarious. In my field, violins, some scientist discovers the secret of Stradivari violins about every year or so. The media jumps on it with both feet, proclaiming the problems solved, and then forgets until the next time. Consequently, I view this type of report with extreme suspicion.

When I saw the original announcement that the shroud had been disproved, I immediately read it and scoffed: lots of holes in their "proof", but the media missed them all.

Which is not to say that I believe in the shroud--only that proving something is a lot more complex than getting a handful of scientists (who never seem to be experts in the field their proclaiming in) to sign on.

So, stop beating up on Chris, already, like you guys are all experts on the topic, yourselves: you read what the press had to say, then formed your opinions based on what you already believed. That's not science: it's abnormal psychology.

Posted by Michael on Tue Dec 29, 2009 at 09:17 PM

Violins is never the answer.....
(someone had to say it)

Posted by Canadarm in Toronto on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 02:30 PM

So, Michael's contention is that because people falsely claim to recreate the Stradivari violin sound that the shroud hasn't been recreated? Sorry. Going to need more than that. Please share the holes in the proof you mentioned.

Posted by gcason on Wed Dec 30, 2009 at 04:45 PM

gcason, I just borrowed a copy of THE SHROUD OF TURIN by Ian Wilson which is the source of my points. On page 22 Proffessor Coon is quoted as saying that the image is "of a physical type found in modern times among Sephardic Jews and noble Arabs." Ian Wilson references a secondary source, which I have never read, Robert K. Wilcox SHROUD page 136. I had thought that the quote was from a primary sourc but it's from a secondary source. However, if the quote is accurate, the fact that it speaks of modern times and lumps Sephardic Jews and noble Arabs together would indicate it is Middle Eastern Jews being rfered to and not Iberian Jews since Arabs were never on the Ibeian peninsula except as a few individuals, all of the Muslem occupirs were of North African stock.

Pieces of the shroud were carbon-dated in 1987 by three separate laboratories. All three

Posted by Canadarm in Toronto on Thu Dec 31, 2009 at 01:14 PM

Canadarm, questions were raised about those carbon dating tests almost as soon as they were announced. Look at pictures of the Shroud as displayed during the 14th and 15th Centuries. Always it is displayed with people holding along the long side, either three or five people. It is never held by the short side in any picture of it being displayed. The threads that were tested were taken from the most contaminated area of the Shroud. All of the threads were destroyed during the tests and there was no independant tests to ensure that the threads had all of the contamination removed. If the threads had been taken from an area just a few inches down the short side there would have been little if any contamination but for whatever reason, this area was not selected. I don't know if the area was chosen by the nuns that hold the Shroud or the scientists, but the tests have had serious questions raised about them and the methodology used.

the shroud of Turin is not, and never has been real. I am very much a Christian, but the shroud is a hoax. End of story.

Posted by Kirk in Seattle on Mon Jan 18, 2010 at 02:03 AM

It's about time someone took charge and made that authoritative decision to end this controversy decisively. Thanks to you Kirk, we couldn't have done it without you. I imagine you'll be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize now. You just wait right there by the phone. It's gonna ring anytime now... a n y t i m e ... now...

...

now...

Posted by Roger in Northern Michigan on Wed Jan 20, 2010 at 02:48 PM

Note the phrasing:

"not known to have been available in the region until medieval times"

In other words, that type of cloth was around at the time, but as far as is known none was in that region at that time...which, scientifically, means nothing.

On top of that, consider:

[I forget if I saw this on NatGeo, Hist, or Disc, but it was one of the those (this is evidence from the past 5 years)]

Earlier tests on the Shroud used samples from the edges (which is standard), but when samples were taken from further in, they dated from the 1st Century AD. The reason for the previous results turns out to be that the edges of the Shroud actually picked up a bacterial infection from the skin of the various nobles who handled it during the Middle Ages (there are in fact depictions from the era of this being done), and it was this biomaterial ground into the cloth by many fingers which had been previously tested.

So if the cloth of the Shroud wasn't around until the Middle Ages, then it's funny that it dates from the 1st Century AD.

On top of that, note the phrasing:

"not known to have been available in the region until medieval times"

In other words, that type of cloth was around at the time, but as far as is known none was in that region at that time...which, scientifically, means nothing.

Posted by Sergei Rostov on Mon Feb 01, 2010 at 08:14 PM

Sergi Rostov, the phrase "not known to have been available until medieval times" means that there is no evidence for the existence of that type of cloth until medieval times.